Nancy Brinker, former Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO, has a new cause. She is the driving force behind a new non-profit called, GPS 4 Homeless. The project is collecting old Global Positioning System (GPS) devices and giving them to the homeless.

In a news conference held this morning Brinker explained:

“The homeless are just people who are lost and need direction. That is exactly what a GPS device does and if homeless people could afford a GPS device they would no longer be lost! I don’t know why nobody has thought of this before!”

A spokesperson for GPS 4 Homeless added:

“When one of our people upgrade to a newer model they put the old one in a drawer. Now it can be put to good use for those people.”

When asked what they meant by ‘our people,’ the spokesperson responded, “You know, us.” Asked if they meant wealthy white people, the spokesperson replied, “Who else would I be talking about?”

Brinker added:

“This is one cause that has no political division. Everybody wants to help the homeless and that’s what we’re doing.”

GPS 4 Homeless is currently only in Texas, but their plan is to expand into Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi by 2014.

In Part I, “Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t,” we discussed the dangers of trying to ‘manage the message’ in a Social Media world. Part II looks at the techniques used by organizations to manage the message and why they fail.

Organizations that adopt a manage the message policy for Public Relations (PR) assume that they are the controllers and manipulators of the public image of their organization, which demotes the public to the role of a mindless zombie. If that doesn’t sound stupid enough, let’s look at the methods that organizations use to manage the message.¹

[¹I realize that I’ve used the words Manage the Message five times in the first two paragraphs; however, “insulting PR techniques” isn’t quite specific enough as there are so many of them. 😉 ]

Corporate PR: We manage the message by not listening

Anti-listening TechniquesThe subtle use of anti-listening techniques is one strategy used by organizations who seek to manage the message. The concept is simple: an organization can’t be held accountable for issues that don’t exist. By not listening an organization can effectively deny existence of an issue because they can claim ignorance, therefore can deny accountability.

One example is the use of formalized procedures for communication from the stakeholders, including the public. An organization might ignore or restrict communication on their Facebook page, requiring complaints and comments to be made through a process that is more complex or requires greater risk to complainer.

EXAMPLE: From the Facebook page for a Parent/Teacher group of an Elementary School after parents discussed concerns about major changes in the school calendar:

“Please remember that this page is used for the PTC to share PTC sponsored fundraising events and activities. If anyone has comments/complaints about the school they need to be addressed with the administration.”

(From the School’s Marketing Director)

The strategy of denying open discussion of issues allows an organization to divide and conquer people who may object or have a strong reaction to negative events or significant changes. By restricting public comment on their website or Social Media formats such as Facebook, an organization can prevent all but the most committed people from voicing their opinion or concern. For those that do comment, the organization can hide dissent and concerns behind a veil that only they have access to, so the true scope of the issue is hidden from public.

The problem with this technique is that issues or concerns do not go away by ignoring or hiding them. Whether expressed or not the reaction exists and it impacts the public image of the organization. A divide and conquer strategy increases the reaction once people discover that others share their concerns. In the Social Media world, the truth will eventually come out through a disgruntled customer, employee, or other source. Once the full scope of the deception is exposed the organization will lose all credibility and once the organization loses credibility the public image is also lost.

In January of 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was receiving massive condemnation for a politically charged decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Rather than accepting that the public voice was valid, CEO Nancy Brinker attempted to double down on their position by claiming a bogus conservative-initiated Congressional investigation was reason to deny the grant requests by Planned Parenthood. Her efforts to paint an obvious conservative-motivated action as justified left her and the organization looking like right-wing wackos who had no clue that the organization depended on the perceived goodwill of the public.

By the time they tried to back peddle and fix the problem it was too late. Race For the Cure events in 2012 lost as much as one-third of the participation from the previous year and many donors question the use of their money by the Foundation. The irony is that Nancy Brinker had founded the organization thirty years earlier in her sister’s memory and now the Susan G. Komen name is not so much a symbol of fighting breast cancer as it is a reminder of conservative attempts to use backdoor methods to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else.

If you are a business professor teaching students the importance of ‘managing the message,’ or a Public Relations (PR) firm telling your client how to ‘manage the message,’ would you please stop. No, I mean stop right now. In fact, contact everyone you have taught or advised and tell them you were wrong then refund their money.

CEO Tony Hayward got his ‘life back,’ but BP is still in PR clean up mode in the United States

‘Managing the message’ cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election. It severely damaged Netflix in 2011. It cost a BPCEO his job. It took the Susan G. Komen Foundation from being a major player in non-profit foundations to one that has to hide its name in shame.

Why?

First, ‘managing the message’ doesn’t work. Second, it’s a cowardly way to approach public relations. Third, it’s stupid advice. Fourth, it will end up causing major problems up to and including the end of an organization.

‘Managing the message’ assumes a person has control over the message. That would be a stupid assumption in a world driven by Social Media. John F. Kennedy’s words should be amended:

You can fool all of the people some of the time….until Social Media picks it up and then you’re screwed.

PR is no longer about creating an image. That was true back in the day individuals had no voice and people were subjected to mass advertising in every thing they watched, heard, and read. That was yesterday. Today an organization’s image is created by everyone who comes into contact with the organization. Customers, especially angry ones have as much of a voice in an organization’s public image as the Vice President of Marketing. Today PR is about listening and being honest and real in everything you say and do. That is something that can’t be faked or managed.

Reaction AvoidanceManaging the message is mostly about reaction avoidance. The idea is that if an organization handles it correctly, any negative situation will be minimized. The technique acts like a dam that has a short-term benefit, but a long-term disaster. When a PR crisis occurs the first instinct is to pretend there is no major problem. That is the start of a PR death spiral that only leads to bigger and bigger denials until the organization appears to be run by fools. By then executives turn and blame the PR staff for not ‘managing the message’ better.

The decision-makers in an organization make a bad decision and then after it becomes public, the organization desperately seeks to ignore the obvious. Unfortunately, in a Social Media world, making a bad decision is tragic enough, but to try and deny the obvious is fatal. Such is the fate for the Susan G. Komen Race to the Cure foundation.

When a for-profit angers their customers they may see a downturn in sales, but often the customer often has some dependency on the product or service, so they may be willing to eventually forgive and forget.

Non-profit organizations are different. Non-profits depend on public goodwill and in the case of the Susan G. Komen foundation, they are heavily dependent on the active involvement of volunteers and donors of all political and religious views for their Race For the Cure® runs. While the Komen foundation’s purpose is noble, there are many organizations working on behalf of cancer victims and raising awareness of cancer issues. The Komen foundation has no lock on those people who have supported them in the past and continued goodwill is necessary for their continued survival.

A View To A Kill The Komen foundation had been haunted by religious and conservative political groups once it was learned that grants by the foundation had gone to Planned Parenthood. These grants were specifically for women’s breast health issues, but the conservative groups kept pressure on the foundation to stop all funding of Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel and Sarah Palin at campaign event

Enter Karen Handel, a rabid anti-choice advocate. Handel unsuccessfully ran for Governor of Georgia in 2010, on an anti-choice/defund Planned Parenthood platform. Her campaign was endorsed by Sarah Palin and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Handel narrowly lost in a primary run-off election. In April 2011, The Komen foundation hired Handel as Vice President in charge of public policy. The choice of Handel in this position was a clear message the Planned Parenthood funding would be in jeopardy and the first step in the PR nightmare to come.

In December 2011, the Komen Board of Directors created a procedural rule that would allow the organization to defund Planned Parenthood. The reaction within the organizations was immediate. According to an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, Mollie Williams, the senior public health director quit in protest. At least two sources in Goldberg’s article indicate that the procedural rule was invented to allow the Komen foundation to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.

After the decision became public the reaction throughout Social Media was quick and massive. People began announcing their condemnation of the decision and that they would no longer support the Komen foundation and the Race For the Cure.

A Possible PR Save?Once the scope of the reaction became obvious, the Komen foundation might have had a public relations opportunity to save the organization by voting to reverse their decision and immediately firing Karen Handel and any others responsible for putting the organization in a public image blood bath. That move would have instantly made them the target of conservative political and religious groups, but the organization had already experienced that pressure. A reversal would have helped to restore their public image and bought back some goodwill.

The one thing they could not do was spin the decision to try and make it look palatable to the non-Conservative public.

The Nail In The Coffin Rather than facing up to the bad decision the Komen foundation, led by CEO and Founder Nancy G. Brinker, instead began aggressively spinning the decision and denying the conservative religious and political motivations. Choosing to stand by the decision has now compounded the PR disaster assuring a slow and dishonorable death for the Komen foundation. Blogs are discussing the organization’s budget and how much money is retained for administrative costs. Certainly they might gain some short-term financial support from well-financed Conservative donors; however, they will not be able to replace the legions of volunteers who made The Race to the Cure possible in communities throughout the country.

It is apparent that the Susan G. Komen foundation leadership has little understanding of the impact of Social Media on public relations. They have acted as if they were operating in 20th Century media environment where a bluff could be held through a news cycle and the voice of the organization could drown out the facts of a situation. Now Nancy G. Brinker has spent all her credibility and has become the face of the scandal. Unfortunately, there is no turning back now. The Race For the Cure has made themselves political by making this decision, and by trying to spin the story they have made a serious wound a fatal one.

UPDATE:

At approximately 8:30 AM PST on Friday, February 3, 2012, CNN said the Komen Foundation was reversing its decision and would fund Planned Parenthood.